For concealed carry permits, why not restrictions similar to getting a security clearance?

[CreekDog]

Last edited Wed Jan 15, 2014, 02:58 PM - Edit history (1)

This is a very large responsibility, especially in a country with so many gun deaths.

In addition to ensuring that the person is trained sufficiently to not only be able to use the gun accurately (and the judgement to use it not at all if they can't).

Similar to background investigations for security clearances, before being granted, investigations into mental health issues (not just anything, but focused on whether the person may be a danger to hurt themselves or others) as well as interviews with neighbors and colleagues.

We ask similar things of those who handle highly important information. Why not those who are sanctioned by the government to carry a gun, concealed?

(I posted this because it appears the Florida shooter may have been carrying his weapon concealed and in addition, had recently had an altercation with another person...tighter regulation of concealed permitting, including ongoing evaluation to keep such a permit, I think is warranted if someone wants to carry such lethal force concealed).

[Straw Man]

1. Well, for NY State ...

... I needed five character references, fingerprints, and a full background check for criminal and mental health history. It cost me $120 and a three-month wait. I came up clean, but the judge could still have denied me without giving any reason if he had wanted to. It's called "may issue."

He didn't. I got my permit. It's not valid in NY City, though. That still hasn't been adequately explained to me.

NY State still has no training requirement. In fact, state law does not allow permit applicants (or anyone else) to touch handguns until their permit has been granted. Curious, that.

[Eleanors38]

2. Has the TOS in GD changed?

[CreekDog]

3. GD does not have a "Terms of Service" (TOS)

for a poster whose favorite topic is guns, you sure live to shut down any discussion of them in GD.

that would be curious if it wasn't so obvious.

by the way, which do you like more, Eleanor Roosevelt or Eleanor Roosevelt's gun?

[Eleanors38]

4. Oh, sorry. Ahem. SOP. What's so curious about following the, uh, SOP?

Is it obvious, Creek? Why isn't it obvious to you?

You don't think pro-2A DUers don't have a lot to post in GD? Sorry to tell you, but they have the courtesy to follow rules -- uh, SOP -- when posting threads.

Now, why do you want to violate the rules? I'm curious, too. It's okay to be obvious, though for me it is unnecessary.

Eleanor is great! Wouldn't you love to sit down with her and discuss the Constitution? I would.

[CreekDog]

6. I'm not violating any rules. I've actively followed what's allowed and disallowed and conformed

I've actively followed Admin direction on this from Skinner, as well as even the guidelines given to hosts.

Also, if the hosts locked my thread as off topic, it would not be a violation of any DU rule.

and finally, if you're claiming that pro-2A DUers follow the rules, then why have almost half of those who violated the Gun Control group rules and got blocked, also be banned from DU for Terms of Service violations? because pro-2A DUers follow the rules so well? really?

speaking of rules, why are you blocked from the Gun Control Group? ah, couldn't follow the rules of that group.

ps-you still haven't told me what you admire more, Eleanor Roosevelt or her gun. perhaps you don't want to.

[Eleanors38]

7. I think it is obvious some banners desire Guns in GD

so they can continue a control/ban campaign, accompanied by the usual smear and denigration that is the Hallmark of that campaign. You can't do that in the Gungeon or in Bansalot. So you drag it back into GD/META in hopes of what? I don't know. Sport, maybe? Feeling superior by running down others? Discharging pent-up frustrations and hatreds onto others who are "fair game" by some unspoken DU Standard? You tell me, since you are into unanswered questions.

You could crack a shaggy dog joke in Bansalot & get banned. I was banned for a point of information about DU folks working with GOP-founded, GOP-led groups in accomplishing Bansalot's "activism." Fair question, no?

I just Love Eleanor. Never met her gun.

[CreekDog]

13. So you're saying this thread should be locked because it's pro-gun control?

as for loving Eleanor, then why is your screen name about her gun and not her?

[Eleanors38]

16. No. It's the SOP, Creek. Why don't you follow it?

[CreekDog]

19. So you're saying that I should ignore what Skinner said in ATA about the topic?

no thank you.

[Eleanors38]

21. See #8.

[CreekDog]

25. what you would ban from discussion is more broad than what Skinner has suggested

and who are you? are you a GD host, a DU admin?

or are you just an anti gun control poster who doesn't want us talking about gun control or even guns in GD, no matter what?

i don't think i'll be listening to you.

[Eleanors38]

122. That's the prob, Creek: You "don't listen." There was a reason

for keeping "guns" out of GD, or the SOP would not have been in place. Your "argument" is disingenuous because the real motivation is to defeat the SOP, and return to

Bidness As Usual in the gun culture wars.

That is obvious.

[CreekDog]

124. Nobody who has been posting as conservatively as you is going to accuse me...

of undermining this place.

that's BS.

[Eleanors38]

146. Creek. What's in Your resume?

[Ranchemp.]

32. I know the answer.

If he posts this thread in the GCRA group, it'll get minimal attention because only a few dedicated GC'ers post there, so, why not take the chance that this thread won't be locked due to a violation of the SOP?

It's pretty obvious what he's doing.

[Kingofalldems]

36. Yeah, a lot of things are obvious.

[Ranchemp.]

37. HI BUDDY!

I was wondering when you would make your presence known. How are you today? I hope you're doing well, it's a beautiful day here, sun shining, moderated temps, life is good.
I so look forward to our bonding sessions, they just make my day., really, they do.

[CreekDog]

41. Funny how those who LOVE TO DISCUSS GUNS, want to stop Gun Discussions in GD

you want to control the terms of the gun debate, preferably, keep that debate in a forum where anti-gun control folks far outnumber gun control proponents.

which is why, despite gungeoners talking about guns more than any other topic.

they are working together here to stop the discussion of guns.

it almost doesn't make sense, until it makes perfect sense.

[Ranchemp.]

44. I've come to accept the discussion of guns in GD,

I could care less where they're discussed at this time, my opinion or position won't change no matter where the threads are.
BTW, I kinda agree with your proposal for a CCW, although it won't affect retired LEO's because the unions police unions will never allow it for their retirees.

[Bjorn Against]

52. Exactly, the people insisting we can't handle discussion of guns in GD are usually gun advocates

If they really thought that gun threads were so awful that they need to be banned from GD then why the hell are they spending so much time discussing guns on this site? If they really believed the discussion here was so disruptive that it needs to be limited then it would seem they would stay far away from gun threads.

The reason they don't want guns discussed in GD however has nothing to do with keeping GD civil, it has everything to do with the fact that they don't want people to see news stories that show the damage that guns cause to our society.

[CreekDog]

108. you see us little people aren't really qualified to discuss guns

we just get all emotional about kids dying and everything. if we were rational we would never let the death of a child lead us to do anything that might harm a gun.

[Kingofalldems]

45. Gee if you don't like gun threads in GD maybe you should

go to Skinner. He just might be sympathetic to your cause. What do you think there sport?

[Ranchemp.]

49. Hey BUDDY,

I don't run crying to Skinner about insignificant things, unlike others.
So, are you enjoying our bonding sessions also? I feel we've really become close these past few days.
Let's keep it up and become really good BUDDIES, ok?

[Kingofalldems]

55. You sure do post about them.

[Ranchemp.]

58. About running to Skinner?

Link please, if you would be so kind BEST BUDDY.

[Kingofalldems]

59. 'Insignificant things'---you wrote it.

Go back and look at the post I responded to. If I were you I would contact Skinner for sure.

[Ranchemp.]

61. I have no reason to contact Skinner, he has much better things to do, why don't

you be a peach and do it for me BEST BUDDY?

I really an enjoying this bonding session. Are you BEST BUDDY?
Maybe we should get together someday and get to know each other, that would be the crowning achievement of my life.

[Kingofalldems]

62. If you want to post about guns you can go to

Gun Control Reform Activism. We can discuss gun control there as I don't post in the gungeon. How about that?

[Ranchemp.]

119. Great, now all you've got to do is convince your buddies

to unblock me and I will be more than happy to have a civil discussion about gun control.

[HangOnKids]

144. Oh poor thing

Somebody has blocked you. That just cracks me up. Would you call them all BUDDY too?

[Ranchemp.]

149. Awwww look,

someone else wants to bond also, how ya doing BUDDY?

[HangOnKids]

163. Ahh how cute. The countdown begins.

Keep it up buddy I am loving this! And the Angels....what a bust.

[Ranchemp.]

164. Yeah, the Angels sucked this last season,

but, there's always the upcoming season.
I'm the eternal optimist when it comes to the Angels.

10,9,8,7,6,........................................................................................................................

[HangOnKids]

165. The countdown continues....

Only it has nothing to do with the Angels. Keep going dude it is hilarious.......

[Ranchemp.]

166. And just when I thought we were having a bonding moment.

I have a sad now.

[HangOnKids]

167. Keep Going

It is getting more hilarious.

[Ranchemp.]

168. LOL.

Yes, it is getting more hilarious.

[Kingofalldems]

150. Ouch.

[Ranchemp.]

152. Hi BEST BUDDY.

How are you this fine morning? Ready for more bonding?
BTW, Hang's post? Nope, didn't hurt at all.

[Kingofalldems]

151. Apparently they have decided you can't discuss

guns there. Hey, maybe they are way off. Perhaps one of the admins could help.

[Ranchemp.]

153. Naw, I'm not going to bother the Admins about being blocked,

they've got far better things to do.

[CreekDog]

39. it's not a violation. as for the gun control group, most in GD are in favor of gun control.

and there are more people to discuss big gun control issues and big gun control stories here than in a subgroup.

[Kingofalldems]

43. Agreed.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

121. Banners?

[Jenoch]

20. I have a question...

"...why have almost half of those who violated the Gun Control group rules and got blocked, also be banned from DU for Terms of Service violations?"

How do know this?

I got banned only because I posted on a thread in the Latest Threads group and was unaware of its origins. Plus, I replied to a post that was an inside joke and only figured it out later.

[CreekDog]

22. Screen names of members blocked from that group can be seen in the "About this group" and...

in the threads themselves.

the screen names of members who have been revoked is also available to DU members.

and yes, about half those that have been blocked also had their posting privileges revoked by DU.

[Jenoch]

28. Do you check those lists daily?

Those that have been banned from DU have their names removed from the pro guncontrol banned list.

[CreekDog]

31. No, I did it once, so it could be a few weeks out of date

you realize it's not secret information. it's also not complicated to discern from the group's threads.

[Jenoch]

35. I think your estimation of half is too high.

[CreekDog]

38. 47% is roughly half is it not?

25 are currently blocked, 22 were banned that are now PPR'd.

here's the post where I did that math for you.

CreekDog (39,369 posts)
212. 22 were blocked that were later banned by DU

so that means of the 47 who have been blocked, 22, were later banned. 47% of those blocked by the GCRA group were later banned.

there isn't a group that has a better record of blocking trolls, than the GCRA group. of all those blocked, basically half turn out to be trolls.

1.AnotherMcIntosh
2.Remmah2
3.markeybrown
4.skinnytrees
5.WinniSkipper
6.Peter cotton
7.holdencaufield
8.Trunk Monkey
9.dklo
10.FamilyMan
11.slackmaster
12.CokeMachine
13.DemDealer
14.JohnnyBoots
15.premium
16.supernaut
17.rl6214
18.grok
19.MalcomInTheMiddle
20.ceonupe
21.tumtum
22.wild bird

you were saying?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4272215

[Jenoch]

40. Ok...I believe you.

I guess I don't quite understand the inner workings of DU. is there a list of DUers who have been PPR'd?

[CreekDog]

42. it's not an "inner working". and i don't have any list or access to one that you don't have.

[Jenoch]

47. I was actually wishing for you to tell me where to find it.

[etherealtruth]

117. That is interesting

I had no idea that that feature even existed .... hmmmph, learn something new every day!

[ScreamingMeemie]

5. ...

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news.

[Eleanors38]

8. This is SUCH "big news," isn't it? Standard policy/philosophy question

in the 2 groups Already set up to handle such.

[CreekDog]

10. It is related to the big Florida shooting story, it is big news and it is national in scope

and NO, you don't want us discussing guns here in GD, because though you like to discuss guns, you don't want the REST OF US discussing them.

obvious cat is obvious.

[Kurska]

12. You didn't mention that once in your OP

Before you edited it in at a later time

[CreekDog]

15. i was posting about national concealed weapons policy

and it was inspired by what i'd been reading about this instance.

are there some rules and procedures that you have invented that i'm obligated to follow?

no.

[Kurska]

29. "are there some rules and procedures... that i'm obligated to follow" Yeah the SOP for the forum

Granted I didn't invent it, but this doubling back and trying to justify after the fact is hilarious. Have a little intellectual honesty wouldn't you?

[CreekDog]

46. i'm being perfectly honest. why do you think my question about concealed carry came up this morning?

because of the latest developments in the Florida case, which I read and heard on the radio.

and while i didn't think it was necessary to post that inspiration in my OP initially, once the gungeoners started swarming it, i realized it might be necessary.

intellectually dishonest? please.

i've been upfront continually.

if you're so concerned about intellectual honesty, where are your questions to the gungeoners trying to shut down discussion of guns in this thread and others while discussing guns is one of their favorite pastimes here, where are your questions to them about intellectual dishonesty?

nowhere.

so perhaps i should ask if you're being intellectually dishonest in your question to me.

[Eleanors38]

123. Ha. Your argument is broken. You want to talk guns in GD?

Then tell Skinner you want that, and stop the pretense about following some SOP. Hey, I'll support you! Anything goes, like some of the other META-ized topics in GD.

I'm sure the rest of DU is ready to return to your fair & balanced approach, and the resumption of colorful commentary.

[HangOnKids]

139. 10 hours later and the post is still here

Got a problem with that Steve?

[Eleanors38]

145. Read my posts, Hang.

[CreekDog]

9. I don't understand what your problem is. I'm referencing a big news event.

It appears the Florida theater shooter had a concealed weapon and had an previous scuffle. Stricter rules for getting and maintaining a Concealed Carry Permit might have removed that legal right from that person if they were no longer a good candidate to have it.

And yes, this is related to big news.

Skinner (58,829 posts)
1. We've been talking about this in the office quite a bit.

To be honest, I'm a little reluctant to even respond to this because it seems like hosts just want me to tell them exactly what to do, so any utterance from me is extrapolated out so that it becomes a black-and-white "lock it all" or "leave it all." And I get that, because hosting is not easy, and hosts want to do the right thing. But having said that, I will say this...

Here is the big picture: DU naturally follows the news cycle. If guns are being widely covered and discussed in the mainstream national media, then we think DUers will want to discuss guns, and they should be able to do it. But if guns are not being widely covered and discussed in the mainstream national media, then there is going to be much less interest in guns on DU, and most DUers won't want to be bothered by hardened partisans throwing poo in GD.

It seems obvious to me, but in practice it is difficult to enforce.

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. No it isn't.

[CreekDog]

17. you're saying the florida theater shooting is not national news?

really?

well obviously you don't know what you're talking about.

[Agschmid]

67. It's not.

I live in Boston. I've been watching channel 7... my NBC... and listening to NPR all day I've heard about this story 0 times.

Here is what has been talked about...
- A shooting in Roxbury.
- Boeing and their anti union move.
- The Nigerean ban on gays.
- That viral scary baby video.
- A fire in a warehouse.
- The Supreme Court decision on abortion.

How many people die from guns everyday? Why aren't those stories national news?

[CreekDog]

72. CNN isn't national?

CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

and on CBS (2nd item under "Most Shared&quot :

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/argument-over-texting-leads-to-fatal-shooting-at-movie-theater/

also was the 2nd listed story on the NBC News site:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/15/22315067-movie-theater-texting-confrontation-may-have-had-prequel?lite



the story is a couple days old and even a follow up development in the story has merited national coverage.

not national news? you're saying it only counts as national news if you say that you heard it on the radio? even though i heard it on the radio, it counts if you say you heard it.

[Agschmid]

74. Why is this death so much worse than all the others?

Why does this one have so much more interest...

That my real issue. So many people are killed everyday, why aren't we outraged everyday?

[Bjorn Against]

77. We should be outraged every day

You are right that many other killings do not get the national attention that this one does, but they are just as tragic. The reality is that there is big news surrounding guns in this country every single day, it is an issue that never goes away.

[Eleanors38]

125. Ah, there's the rub, Bjorn...

"there is big news surrounding guns in this country every single day..."

The "big news exception" is thereby corrupted to mean everything and nothing!

It is obvious you have created a "Gun Show Loophole" of your own: Big enough for a Mack Truck.

Wanna talk guns "every day" in GD? Please tell Skinner to drop the meaningless language about "big news," so we can talk about ALL issues related to guns, and clear up the ambiguities.

I've been on DU for a long time, and have discussed this topic in a number if venues. I'm perfectly willing to again take up the arguments -- and make original posts -- in GD. And will do so.

[Bjorn Against]

127. I have asked Skinner to drop the rule

I know the admins have been discussing the issue thoroughly, while they have not dropped the rule yet I believe they will eventually. Skinner's posts in Ask the Admins make it pretty clear that they are struggling to find a compromise, but guns are going to keep ending up in the news and I don't think they want to be in the game of deciding which gun threads are big news and which ones are not. I predict gun threads will officially be allowed in GD soon, there are lots of people who want open discussion on guns.

[Eleanors38]

129. Fine by me. Curiously, the main gun group (Gungeon)

will de facto return to Forum status due to the heavy volume of OPs which will ensue. Big audience for folks looking to persuade one way or another. In the end, the general GD membership and potential new members should get a good measure of the arguments. I look forward to whatever system is (re)enacted!

[Bjorn Against]

130. I look forward to open discussion of guns in GD

[CreekDog]

78. so that's why you keep trying to lock these threads

because you don't want this or any other gun death to be posted or talked about.

talk about all those gun deaths equally...which in your case means not at all.

uh huh.

[Agschmid]

85. The lines between which you read are incredibly wide, no?

[CreekDog]

87. no, empirical observation of statements here and elsewhere

saves me the need to read between any lines.

[Agschmid]

89. I am able to back up everything I say.

I read the SOP as the SOP, that's how I host. If you take the time to actually learn my feelings about guns rather than resort to calling me disingenuous I'm sure this conversation would be much more pleasant for the both of us.

[Bjorn Against]

92. Agschmid I will say I found you to be a very fair host even though you locked my thread

You locked my thread but you treated me very fairly and the thread got unlocked on appeal.

I fully understand why you read the SOP in the way that you do, I feel the SOP is written in a way that is bound to be interpreted in different ways by different people.

I am on CreekDog's side when it comes to discussion of guns in GD, I believe there is big news happening involving guns every single day so I believe that big news exception provides a huge amount of leeway in discussing guns. I can totally understand how you or others could hold a different interpretation of what constitutes big news however and that is one reason think the entire rule is really bad, it is very unclear what consitutes big news and different hosts are going to have very different opinions on this.

I must say however that even though I am closer to CreekDog's position than yours, I do feel that from what I have seen you have been a fair host.

[Agschmid]

93. Thank you!

Means a lot.

Politically just FYI (I'll come out... What the hell) I am quite anti-gun. I believe every gun death is tragic and I'd love to see legislative action to STOP gun violence.

[CreekDog]

113. Actually I did notice that you were pro gun control

the issue is that i was calling this national news or related to national news and you came in and said it wasn't.

when you said that, i don't know if you were wearing your host hat or your regular DU member hat, but because you chose to answer my post which justified my right to post this topic in GD, you were apparently wearing your host hat.

in which case, when you started saying, why is this death important, when they all are important.

since you chose to wear your host hat, it is fair that i asked that if every death is important, isn't it ironic that you are trying to shut down not only this one, but any other as well?

that's what happened here.

[NealK]

73. How come almost everybody I know have heard about it if it's such a mundane event?

[Agschmid]

75. Every gun death should be national news.

[CreekDog]

80. yet you don't think any of them should be discussed in GD

well that's ironic, isn't it?

[Agschmid]

84. No it's not.

Why does this one get a special exception... Literally people die EVERYDAY from guns we should be allowed to discuss it in GD.

However the SOP, in theory, prevents that. That's just how I host... Deal with it.

[CreekDog]

86. you keep posting in this thread that "every death is important"

while voting as host to lock any discussion of any death.

disingenuous is a word that comes to mind.

[HangOnKids]

143. The post stands 9 hours later

So why is that Ags? Maybe you are wrong. Hosting or not. Skinner has let the post stay.

[Agschmid]

147. Hosting is not "right or wrong"...

This is the way hosting works some people vote to lock some people vote to leave and consensus is reached.

The system works and I get to vote however I would like (anyone who is a GD host does, you should all give it a try!). I actually removed my vote for this thread since I got into it with creekdog.

But sure go ahead point out how you think I'm wrong when in reality I did the right thing.

[Electric Monk]

88. This latest Florida theater shooting is even International News, actually

eg. Canada http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-theatre-shooting-texting-spat-turns-deadly-1.2495418

and Britain http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25726591

It even made the news in India http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-14/mad-mad-world/46184402_1_popcorn-wesley-chapel-alex-cummings

[Agschmid]

90. This is international news too...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter

Although a bit older... Every gun crime is horrific and could be prevented in one easy step.

[Electric Monk]

142. You chose that to post because you think the Blue Helmets might be coming to take your preciouses?

About their own safety, Americans often have an unusual ability to hold two utterly opposed ideas in their heads simultaneously. That can only explain the past decade in which the fear of terror has cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars in wars, surveillance and intelligence programmes and homeland security. Ten years after 9/11, homeland security spending doubled to $69bn . The total bill since the attacks is more than $649bn.

One more figure. There have been fewer than 20 terror-related deaths on American soil since 9/11 and about 364,000 deaths caused by privately owned firearms. If any European nation had such a record and persisted in addressing only the first figure, while ignoring the second, you can bet your last pound that the State Department would be warning against travel to that country and no American would set foot in it without body armour.

But no nation sees itself as outsiders do. Half the country is sane and rational while the other half simply doesn't grasp the inconsistencies and historic lunacy of its position, which springs from the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, and is derived from English common law and our 1689 Bill of Rights. We dispensed with these rights long ago, but American gun owners cleave to them with the tenacity that previous generations fought to continue slavery. Astonishingly, when owning a gun is not about ludicrous macho fantasy, it is mostly seen as a matter of personal safety, like the airbag in the new Ford pick-up or avoiding secondary smoke, despite conclusive evidence that people become less safe as gun ownership rises.

[Agschmid]

148. I don't have guns.

I think most guns should be banned...

I am not sure how I can make this more clear?

[NealK]

65. So it's the new normal? Nothing to see here, move along.

I guess that the New Mexico School Shooting is not big news either, these tragedies happen so often that I can understand why some people could be desensitized to death by firearms.

[Straw Man]

99. Rules.

Status of "big news" exceptions:

There are currently no special exceptions.

This as of 5:56 p.m. EST on 1/15/14.

But I don't give a crap what you discuss in GD. I was the first one who actually responded to your topic.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. The naval yard shooter passed a background check AND a security clearance

despite past mental health issues and run-ins with the law.

We have systems in place but the authorities who we rely on to enforce any system -- including the one you propose -- are negligent in their duties.

[CreekDog]

18. no we don't actually have the system in place that i've described

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. I came no where near asserting we had the system you propose.

I even referred to the system you propose as -- and I quote myself -- "the one you propose." I said we have background checks and security clearances, which is true. Yet, the shooter passed both systems due to dereliction of duty on the part of the very same authorities you would rely upon to enforce the system you propose.

[gollygee]

23. It seems like the pro-gunners only care to discuss whether

this thread belongs here. Not whether it's reasonable.

Carrying a deadly weapon able to kill multiple people at a distance is a huge responsibility and I personally think it shouldn't be allowed at all. Guns in your home - not my business. If it is allowed, and obviously it is, then yes IMO it should be strongly regulated.

[CreekDog]

27. Correct! Those MOST INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING GUNS, want this thread stopped.

That's got to make you wonder, don't you think?

And yes, I agree, it's a huge responsibility that should be strongly regulated.

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. And others wish to avoid discussing the relevant law applying to the Florida incident

They are happy to discuss guns in GD, as long as the conversation goes
in the direction they want it to

[Orrex]

24. Because guns.

Isn't that always the answer?

[cali]

26. In Vermont you don't need a license to cc or open carry. As long as you're over 16

you can do it.

Not saying that's desirable, but Vermont really doesn't have people running around shooting each other.

[X_Digger]

33. As a retired cop, the shooter required no permit to carry concealed.

Your beef is with the police associations who make sure that their support of new legislation is contingent on their own members being exempt, including retirees.

One law for me, another law for thee.

[Kaleva]

95. He has to have a photo ID issued by the agency he retired from...

and he has to maintain his gun qualifications, at his or her own expense, just as he would have when he was still on active duty.

[X_Digger]

103. True; I don't know about FL, but in Dallas..

.. the cert test for city officers is about as hard as the CHL range qualification (for handguns at least.) There are a few more hoops to jump through for qualification on patrol rifle / shotgun.

[libodem]

34. Yep

Good idea!

[sarisataka]

48. Apples and oranges...

The Florida man's authorization came from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act which allows retired police to carry concealed virtually anywhere in the U.S. It overrides local ordinances with very limited exceptions.

Civilian carriers are authorized at the state level and are subject to many more restrictions.

Now are you proposing to eliminate the LEOSA and require off-duty and retired police to have the same rules as citizens? If so, is this done at a federal level and therefore would preempt local restrictions on concealed carry such as NYC?

[CreekDog]

53. I don't want to loosen controls anywhere they are tighter

and I do want to tighten controls where they aren't.

and whatever legislation is necessary to do something that is reasonable to get there (keeping in mind, i do support gun rights, but regulated gun rights).

[sarisataka]

56. Then you are in a corner...

Civilian carry laws have no bearing on this particular incident. It doesn't make much sense to have an extremely strict nationwide requirement that can be over ruled by any locality. I don't think such an arrangement would pass on Constitutional grounds.

It would require a federal level change in what current and former police officers are permitted to do. I don't see that happening.

For myself, I would have no issue with police having the same rules as everyone else.

[CreekDog]

60. I'm not in a corner and I'm not going to let the disingenuous "concerns" of gungeoner-type-thinking

dissuade me from wanting or posting in favor of common sense regulation.

not biting on it, not at all.

[sarisataka]

63. Post away

if you feel you need my permission you can have it.

I am pointing out you are dealing with a separate class of carrier in this case, one supposedly more thoroughly vetted than an 'average' person.

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. You put yourself in one by not knowing about the relevant law in the Florida shooting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer"—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.

The act was introduced during the 108th Congress as H.R. 218 and enacted as Public Law 108-277.[1] The law was later amended by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010 (S. 1132, Public Law 111-272),[2] and Section 1099C of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 4310, Public Law 112-239).[3] It is codified within the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 as 18 USC §§ 926B[4] and USC §§ 926C.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024334280#post48

The Florida man's authorization came from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act which allows retired police to carry concealed virtually anywhere in the U.S. It overrides local ordinances with very limited exceptions.

Civilian carriers are authorized at the state level and are subject to many more restrictions.

Now are you proposing to eliminate the LEOSA and require off-duty and retired police to have the same rules as citizens? If so, is this done at a federal level and therefore would preempt local restrictions on concealed carry such as NYC?

...and then proclaiming:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024334280#post53

I don't want to loosen controls anywhere they are tighter
and I do want to tighten controls where they aren't.

...then refusing to state whether you'd like to see it repealed or not.

[X_Digger]

57. Are you willing to sacrifice the nice little soundbites attached to future gun legislation..

.. saying how X bill is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police Desk Sergeants, etc?

The reason so many police organizations support gun control is that it doesn't apply to them.

I imagine that if you were to propose a law repealing FLEOSA (you know, the law that provided for the shooter to carry concealed without a license), it'd go down in flames.

[CreekDog]

69. X-Digger, always chiming in to support gun control legislation

with helpful advice designed to get us not to bother.

[X_Digger]

70. I'll take that as a 'no', then that you don't support repeal of FLEOSA?

Funny, some folks seem to be A-OK with retired cops having one set of laws and another for the rest of us.

[CreekDog]

76. don't play games and put words in my mouth. i've explained what i support.

as an aside, i'll note the inspiration for many gungeoner fantasies is a belief in some sort of apocalyptic showdown with the government and law enforcement in the future.

so while the gungeoners oppose further gun control, they are upset at anything that gives police greater weapons than they have.

because of apocalyptic gungeoner end times fantasy thinking.

so yeah. there is too much nonsense packed into some heads here, i just refuse to follow those tangents where they lead, no matter how badly you'd like me to go there with you.

[X_Digger]

79. So in your world, FLEOSA isn't even a tangent to the FL shooting? That explains a lot.

It's actually a lot more on point than concealed carry licensing standards.

[CreekDog]

81. I'm not answering your questions, whatever fantasy you post about what I support is BS

when you pepper me with questions and then attempt to put an answer into my mouth about what i support, everyone should know that whatever you say is BS.

I'm not playing games with you and I will not be engaged by the NRA style manual.

just save it for someone who is willing to play your nonsense game.

[X_Digger]

82. For someone claiming that this thread is about the FL shooting..

.. you're damned determined to not discuss the legal issues surrounding it.

Why is that, do you suppose?

[Bjorn Against]

83. I am with you on this one CreekDog, that poster was being extremely intelectually dishonest

It was clear to me that he was trying to put words in your mouth and claim you supported a law you had never even mentioned.

[CreekDog]

97. that's the classic style of their arguments.

in fact so many do it, and do it similarly, it feels like you're arguing with the same person, no matter who posted it.

[Straw Man]

100. Classic arguments.

He is merely trying to point out to you that you are not referring to the relevant legislation in this case.

It appears the Florida theater shooter had a concealed weapon and had an previous scuffle. Stricter rules for getting and maintaining a Concealed Carry Permit might have removed that legal right from that person if they were no longer a good candidate to have it.

Tightening CCW would have done nothing in this case because CCW regs don't apply retired law enforcement officers. The relevant statutes for them are LEOSA. Is that so hard to understand?

You're going to have to look elsewhere for your "big news" exemption if you want to discuss CCW in this thread. Either that or engage the discussion of LEOSA laws. If you want to be intellectually honest, that is.

[CreekDog]

101. 81% of posts in Gun Control and RKBA. Next!

i described what he was doing perfectly. and i don't play that game.

i'll talk details and policies with non-gungeoners, but i will not play the rhetorical games with gungeoners and those who play the same games that they do.

he'd ask me to deny the sky was green and when i refuse to play his game, he'll say, "wow, you're stupid, you think the sky is green! Hey look everybody, Creekdog is stupid, he says the sky is green!".

it's all bullshit. i don't play your game because the methods are right out of the NRA style manual.

now why don't you go argue in your comfort zone.

[Straw Man]

104. Well, there's a quandry ...

You fault me for posting mainly in the Gungeon, and then you tell me to go back there. Talk about trying to squash dissent.

What you call a "rhetorical game" I call discussion. Rhetoric, y'know. The art of persuasion, and all that. I don't know why you'd have any problem denying that the sky is green. In case you haven't looked lately, it's blue.

You don't have to engage in discussion with me or anyone else, here or anywhere, but sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "NRA style manual" is a piss-poor dodge.

I'll put this very simply: since CCW laws don't apply to former law enforcement officers and are not relevant to your OP, would you support tightening the restrictions on carry by retired LEOs, and if so, to what degree?

[CreekDog]

105. do you support single payer health care or not?

i'm serious when i ask this. yes or no.

[Straw Man]

106. Yes. I do.

Why do you ask?

[CreekDog]

107. oh, why you do?

well then that means you support repealing ACA, because we can't have full single payer without ACA being removed.

and you support repealing Medicare, because the program only covers those 65 and over or those fully disabled.

oh and then you support repealing Medicaid, because that's 50 systems and single payer means just one payer, but that's 50 payers!

oh and then you support taking away everyone's private insurance!

===============


here's the thing. that's bullshit. you support single payer, so do i. that's the answer to the question. saying if you support single payer that you automatically have taken a dozen or more stances on other laws is bullshit argumentation. oh, if we were actually arguing the merits of each and every law and were proposing to change individual laws, that would be fair.

BUT WE'RE NOT.

I posted that concealed carry permitting should be much, much more stringent. That's called AN IDEA. I didn't take a stand on all the previous national and local laws that would have to be changed to do it, I said we need something stricter.

And then X-digger tried to play the game i was describing at the top of this message.

And it's bullshit and he knows it. It's a bullshit way of arguing and I'm not going to play around when confronted by it by single issue gungeoner types who have an agenda that is mostly opposed to what DU is about.

[Straw Man]

109. So go ahead and explain your stance ...

... on LEOSA. Nobody is denying you that opportunity. In fact, it's vital to your OP. It's a huge issue that you're trying to ignore. LEOSA is what allowed the Florida shooter to carry his gun into the movie theater. Not CCW -- that's for civilians. LEOSA, which is a sacred cow in the National Security State. Anyone who opposes it gets accused of being an anti-government militia-type, as you did just upthread.

I posted that concealed carry permitting should be much, much more stringent. That's called AN IDEA. I didn't take a stand on all the previous national and local laws that would have to be changed to do it, I said we need something stricter.

And you seem to be unwilling to discuss the ramifications of that idea. You reject anything that isn't cheerleading. And then you accuse others of being unwilling to discuss. That's less than intellectually honest.

It's a bullshit way of arguing and I'm not going to play around when confronted by it by single issue gungeoner types who have an agenda that is mostly opposed to what DU is about.

Calling something bullshit and then refusing to discuss is pretty much an admission of failure. You can fling all the epithets you like -- it only speaks to the weakness of your position and your rhetorical abilities.

Next!

[CreekDog]

110. oh please. i won't play the game with X-digger, I won't play it with you.

you don't have any credibility as someone who will discuss this issue without NRA style obfuscation.

there's no point in arguing with you or even discussing it with you --and letting you set the agenda of the discussion? HA! i'm not as stupid as you think i am.


i'm willing to be engaged by credible people on this issue here, not someone who argues as you do. forget it.


I'm not playing your game, quit trying to get me to follow your play book.

[Straw Man]

112. So you only discuss things with people who already agree with you.

Well, that's intellectually honest, I must say ...

I'm giving you an opportunity to explain yourself, and you're shutting down discussion with stupid little pictograms. That says a lot. It really does.

[Eleanors38]

126. Woop! There it is.

[Kurska]

68. There you go, bringing facts and reasons into this.

Tsk tsk tsk, can't we all just have a good poutrage?

[sarisataka]

91. I see many comments

about how a set of posters are trying to shut down these discussions.

However if one actually tries to engage in discussion you get insulted and ignored...

The SOP is there for a reason and I don't believe that reason is to prohibit one side from talking about the issue.

[CreekDog]

96. it's not insulting to point out the tactics of many, not all, gungeoners here

although it is somewhat insulting to have those tactics used here.

[sarisataka]

98. Perhaps insulting is not the correct word

but very often any argument against or even questioning of a specific point of GC gets a person dismissed out of hand usually with some label.
If you go to GCRA you can find a very proGC poster invited to leave the group, with a thinly veiled warning of being blocked. He fault... not agreeing 100% with one poster and a host of the group.

Here, I pointed out that it is a atypical carrier being accused of a crime. Any changes made to the FL CCW law would have absolutely no effect in preventing an occurrence of this nature again.

I have no issue with the charges as IMO it is a very excessive use of force. Then again I am 0/1 in guessing how a jury will decide murder cases in Fl.

[pintobean]

51. Cool meta thread

My attention is deflected.

[Ranchemp.]

54. Yep.

And, as an added bonus, my BEST BUDDY showed up to continue our bonding experience.
All in all, a good day so far.

[CreekDog]

64. so you think the thread is meta? is that what got you interested enough to post?

[pintobean]

66. No, that was just an observation.

I find watching you do your thing interesting, and entertaining.

[Nye Bevan]

94. Courts have ruled that the Second Amendment does NOT guarantee the right to concealed carry.

See http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22648641/federal-court-no-second-amendment-guarantee-concealed-carry

My first choice would be to end concealed carry altogether. If this is not possible, the process should be as onerous as politically possible, with exhaustive background and mental health checks as well as mandatory training, a requirement to have an expensive license, and mandatory liability insurance.

[Straw Man]

102. An "expensive license"?

Is that so the poor folks won't get their hands on any guns? Yeah, we wouldn't want that to happen, would we ...

It's amazing what passes for progressivism these days.

[Nye Bevan]

114. Much as high cigarette taxes reduce smoking,

this would reduce people carrying guns. Yes, both affect the poor more, but if George Zimmerman had been unwilling to pay for a carry license, Trayvon Martin would probably be alive today.

If someone proposed that a carry license should cost $1000 per year I would support that in a heartbeat.

[X_Digger]

115. Let's bring back poll taxes, too. Dumb people got us GWB, amirite? n/t

[Nye Bevan]

116. My goal is to reduce people carrying guns, not people voting (nt)

[Straw Man]

118. Your goal is to reduce POOR people carrying guns.

If someone proposed that a carry license should cost $1000 per year I would support that in a heartbeat.

For some people, that's chump change. Those are obviously the only people that you feel should be entitled to carry.

Yes, just like the poll tax, you wish to selectively grant or deny rights according to income. Very progressive.

[Nye Bevan]

120. Do you support cigarette taxes?

A pack-a-day smoker in New York City pays $2135 per year in taxes. Chump change for some people, but not the poor. Does this contravene progressive ideals?

[friendly_iconoclast]

131. Bad analogy-there's no right to smoke mentioned in the Constitution

As for high fees designed to discourage exercise of an enumerated right,
the Supremes have already declared it a no-no- see
Minneapolis Star and Tribune v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue:

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/460/460.US.575.81-1839.html

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/575/case.html

[Nye Bevan]

134. The courts are generally extremely deferential to Congress's taxing power.

There is no question that a license fee for gun owners would be permitted. The trick then is to make this fee as high as possible without raising constitutional issues.

[Straw Man]

136. Deference.

There is no question that a license fee for gun owners would be permitted. The trick then is to make this fee as high as possible without raising constitutional issues.

If it is set high enough to discourage gun ownership -- the very thing that you want it to do -- then it is almost by definition unconstitutional.

Good luck with that.

[HERVEPA]

155. Your user name was obviously chosen with great attention to detail.

[Straw Man]

156. Would you care to elaborate on that?

Your user name was obviously chosen with great attention to detail.

Like perhaps showing me an error in logic that I may have made?

I'll wait.

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. You can't "...make this fee as high as possible without raising constitutional issues."

Explicitly making the fee high in an attempt to discourage gun ownership is de facto deprivation of rights under color of law. So sayeth the Supreme Court.

A second-year law student could make that case- and rest assured, there would be plenty
of quite able (and expensive) attorneys suing the living daylights out of any locality that
tried it.

[Straw Man]

135. No.

I believe they are a regressive tax that punishes poor people who are addicted to a deadly substance. I would rather see programs that provide monetary incentives to quit and give people support to do so.

Yes, they contravene progressive ideals.

[Prophet 451]

141. That presumes a relationship between income and intelligence

Dumb people did indeed get you DimSon but "poor" is not the same as "dumb". I'd be fine with requiring an IQ test or basic civics test in order to vote.

[pintobean]

111. Here's the trend

[Eleanors38]

128. Actually, you might be right. The 2nd only guarantees the

Right to keep and bear arms. The method of carry is left up to the states which can prescribe either concealed, or open, or both. But the individual states cannot prohibit both. Most have regulated against open carry, as that is within the various states' powers.

Most of your other restrictions, save for perhaps more training, would likely be viewed as a violation of both the Second and the Fourteenth. Further, there is precedent against using high cost as thinly-veiled subterfuge to effect infringement by another name. See the 24th Amendment (poll tax). Not that you advocated it, but these measures don't seem to be within central government powers.

[Prophet 451]

140. Not sure

It depend on exactly what such a clearence would require investigating. For example, would having a mental illness in your past block you? While I agree that letting someone who's currently mentally ill have a firearm is a bad idea (and I currently suffer from a mental illness), someone who has recovered and moved on with their life shouldn't be barred. That would just add to the "they're not like us" stigma of mental illness. Likewise, such security checks often discriminate against the poor or those who've had credit problems (I once got turned down for a casino job because of that).

I guess put me down as fine with the principle but it would depend on the exact details.

[HERVEPA]

154. How about we just restrict them totally, except maybe Secret Service.

And by the way, screw the gunners interpretation of the 2nd amendment, or just screw the damn amendment totally. It was for another time.l

[Straw Man]

157. All power to the Praetorian Guard?

How about we just restrict them totally, except maybe Secret Service.

How very progressive ...

[Ranchemp.]

158. No.

And by the way, screw the gunners interpretation of the 2nd amendment, or just screw the damn amendment totally. It was for another time.l

It's not the gunners interpretation of the 2A, it's the SCOTUS's interpretation.

You want to do away with the 2A? I suggest you get started, of course you realize it will take 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States to do so.
What do you think the chances of that actually happening?
But, what the hey, give it a try.

Here is the blueprint for the process.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

[pintobean]

159. The whole constitution was for another time.

The future.

[Ranchemp.]

160. +1000.

Great post.

[HERVEPA]

161. Not according to Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years, equated not doing so to being 'enslaved to the prior generation'.

http://www.student-of-life.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/21/5502595-thomas-jefferson-supported-rewriting-the-constitution-every-19-years-equated-not-doing-so-to-being-enslaved-to-the-prior-generation-what-do-you-think-about-that

[friendly_iconoclast]

162. Then your task is clear- getting 38 states and 3/4 of Congress to agree with you...

Get back to us when you're ready to do it, mmkay?

[Skip Intro]

169. Why should the secret service have them?

[CreekDog]

170. Considering who the president is, I'm not surprised you ask this question

[Skip Intro]

171. Huh? n/t

[CreekDog]

172. play dumb...

Skip Intro (18,969 posts)
22. I wonder if Obama should ban the Secret Service from carrying guns?

Set an example.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3305964

[Skip Intro]

175. Yeah...and...? n/t

[CreekDog]

173. .

Skip Intro (18,969 posts)
90. "whinyass Californians" - ROFL!



from SC!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3058562

[Skip Intro]

174. Huh? n/t

[CreekDog]

177. Your total contribution to DU on Martin Luther King, Jr. day is "yeah" and "huh"

but considering your opinions, we probably lucked out/

[Skip Intro]

178. tell us more

very odd and disjointed comments, Creek, but then again, so was your OP (as many have noted)...

Maybe a nap would do you some good?

[CreekDog]

179. most in the thread agree that these permits should be harder to get

in most places.

and that keeping them should likewise we harder, where it isn't already.

as for your opinion, i'm pretty sure if i'm pissing you off, that i'm being a good progressive.

[Turbineguy]

176. What kind of wacky idea is this?

Next you'll be asking to outlaw murder in Florida.


For those who need it: